Comments on: At least I can say I flew it when it was cool… http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/ The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy! Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:19:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: A Way to Extend the Mission of the FA-18 - - It’s not random, it’s CHAOS! http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-88869 A Way to Extend the Mission of the FA-18 - - It’s not random, it’s CHAOS! Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:54:50 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/#comment-88869 [...] the indignant post by Neptunus Lex about “pimping his ride” to make “Electric” FA-18s, I wonder how he’ll react to his community becoming MCM [...] [...] the indignant post by Neptunus Lex about “pimping his ride” to make “Electric” FA-18s, I wonder how he’ll react to his community becoming MCM [...]

]]> By: badbob http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-11405 badbob Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:46:44 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/#comment-11405 Sid, I ain't registered but I know the author... Re the big picture, I'll apply "Occam's Razor" (man- between that and schedenfrude I sound like a philosophy major, eh?): I'll make it simpler. The day AIRPAC became Chief Naval Air Forces...on purpose. The big H-Mafia specifically. Another razor example- We only have one aircraft and one weapon that can put a ship down over the horizon by Naval Air now and only if that weapon can really be steered to impact...The savior helo moves at 100kts, the Hornet hasn't enough fuel (even IF it was carrying the missile), and the P-3 is elsewhere....MGod, isn't this mission what Midway was all about? Naval Air Forces my ass...It's Naval Aviation and it has nothing to do with the Airforce. It's fighter, attack, ASW, SAR, MCM, EW, and logistics aircraft uniquely developed to fight on the sea and from it. No I don't say we shouldn't do ISR, air superiority or CAS from the JMETs..I'm saying the taxpayers and their representatives want Naval Aviation- not some sea-borne air force... For that matter, why do we have Marine fixed wing aboard carriers too? Since when did the USMC trump the Navy at their own game... Somedays I think we were punished and continue to be for Tailhook or something I can't put my finger on. Regardless, I can point to the individuals, both active and retired, who set up this fine situation. B2 Sid,
I ain’t registered but I know the author…

Re the big picture, I’ll apply “Occam’s Razor” (man- between that and schedenfrude I sound like a philosophy major, eh?):
I’ll make it simpler. The day AIRPAC became Chief Naval Air Forces…on purpose. The big H-Mafia specifically.

Another razor example- We only have one aircraft and one weapon that can put a ship down over the horizon by Naval Air now and only if that weapon can really be steered to impact…The savior helo moves at 100kts, the Hornet hasn’t enough fuel (even IF it was carrying the missile), and the P-3 is elsewhere….MGod, isn’t this mission what Midway was all about?

Naval Air Forces my ass…It’s Naval Aviation and it has nothing to do with the Airforce. It’s fighter, attack, ASW, SAR, MCM, EW, and logistics aircraft uniquely developed to fight on the sea and from it. No I don’t say we shouldn’t do ISR, air superiority or CAS from the JMETs..I’m saying the taxpayers and their representatives want Naval Aviation- not some sea-borne air force…

For that matter, why do we have Marine fixed wing aboard carriers too? Since when did the USMC trump the Navy at their own game… Somedays I think we were punished and continue to be for Tailhook or something I can’t put my finger on. Regardless, I can point to the individuals, both active and retired, who set up this fine situation.

B2

]]> By: Charles http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-11369 Charles Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:57:13 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/#comment-11369 I probably am the problem. However, I was taught early on in my life there are times and places to mount up on the horse, grab a lance and charge at the windmill. Sometimes it will cause people to have an honest discussion and not do the whole head bob, smile, thumbs up praise of the bosses. Of course that is probably why I am still an E-6 and looking hard and fast at HYT and having a better chance of throwing a snow ball across the Sahara at high noon then making E-7 or LDO/CWO. Yet some one has to do it or we end up with statements like: "Those magnetic exploders work like a champ you just don't know how to fire a torpedo", "Who needs a gun (or the manned airplane)? Missiles are the future.", "Peace is at hand since the wall has fallen, we don't need a military.", "We don't want to inflame tensions so your request for armor is denied" Lex is right to the point that times are hard and if there was a way we could do a magizine subscription or bake sale for a few extra spares or a few more planes/ships that would be great. What is worst though and is challenging my conventional wisdom and logic is how the US Navy has been denying itself that the other missions are just as important in the air wing as those that cross the beach. The ASW, ECM, COD/VOD, ELINT, SAR/CSAR. I know from being near some of the debates about those roles for 15yrs the US Naval Aviation establishment has been spinning its wheels trying to figure out what to do when a large number of these aircraft start to hit obselenance and the powers in large and charge don't want talk about replacement/upgrade because it isn't cool. I probably am the problem. However, I was taught early on in my life there are times and places to mount up on the horse, grab a lance and charge at the windmill. Sometimes it will cause people to have an honest discussion and not do the whole head bob, smile, thumbs up praise of the bosses. Of course that is probably why I am still an E-6 and looking hard and fast at HYT and having a better chance of throwing a snow ball across the Sahara at high noon then making E-7 or LDO/CWO. Yet some one has to do it or we end up with statements like: “Those magnetic exploders work like a champ you just don’t know how to fire a torpedo”, “Who needs a gun (or the manned airplane)? Missiles are the future.”, “Peace is at hand since the wall has fallen, we don’t need a military.”, “We don’t want to inflame tensions so your request for armor is denied”

Lex is right to the point that times are hard and if there was a way we could do a magizine subscription or bake sale for a few extra spares or a few more planes/ships that would be great. What is worst though and is challenging my conventional wisdom and logic is how the US Navy has been denying itself that the other missions are just as important in the air wing as those that cross the beach. The ASW, ECM, COD/VOD, ELINT, SAR/CSAR. I know from being near some of the debates about those roles for 15yrs the US Naval Aviation establishment has been spinning its wheels trying to figure out what to do when a large number of these aircraft start to hit obselenance and the powers in large and charge don’t want talk about replacement/upgrade because it isn’t cool.

]]> By: Ima Fake http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-11364 Ima Fake Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:17:40 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/#comment-11364 Lex, This should be a Cdr. Salamander post, but . . . ? Lex,

This should be a Cdr. Salamander post, but . . . ?

]]> By: Ima Fake http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-409314 Ima Fake Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:17:40 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/#comment-409314 Lex, This should be a Cdr. Salamander post, but . . . “Heavy American frigates went up against the world’s largest and most professional navy in 1812, themselves equipped with line-of-battle ships.” We Americans have always loved speed, and we build fast ships. Architect Joshua Humphreys hit on an excellent combination of speed and power when he designed our first six frigates. Think of the Little Crappy Ship and reverse everything. Anything they could not outrun they could outfight. They were fast and nimble enough to stay out of range of the ships of the line and threw enough weight to pulverize the hulls of any ship they could not outrun. There is an excellent book on the subject, The Naval War of 1812 Theodore Roosevelt. Could we have won a fleet to fleet action? No way. In fact, if you ask a Canadian, they will tell you the War of 1812 was a L not a W. What we could do is build an excellent ship. Now, why can’t we build a sea based airplane, and why is there no CV based fixed-wing ASW? Lex,

This should be a Cdr. Salamander post, but . . . “Heavy American frigates went up against the world’s largest and most professional navy in 1812, themselves equipped with line-of-battle ships.”

We Americans have always loved speed, and we build fast ships. Architect Joshua Humphreys hit on an excellent combination of speed and power when he designed our first six frigates. Think of the Little Crappy Ship and reverse everything. Anything they could not outrun they could outfight. They were fast and nimble enough to stay out of range of the ships of the line and threw enough weight to pulverize the hulls of any ship they could not outrun. There is an excellent book on the subject, The Naval War of 1812 Theodore Roosevelt. Could we have won a fleet to fleet action? No way. In fact, if you ask a Canadian, they will tell you the War of 1812 was a L not a W. What we could do is build an excellent ship.

Now, why can’t we build a sea based airplane, and why is there no CV based fixed-wing ASW?

]]> By: sid http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/comment-page-1/#comment-11355 sid Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:16:36 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/08/02/at-least-i-can-say-i-flew-it-when-it-was-cool/#comment-11355 I have been observing (and at times directly particiaping in) Naval Aviation for nearly half its entire existence-not that it matters just even a little-but in all that time I have never seen the tailhook navy as unbalanced as it is today. And I will say that unbalance is inimical to its continued existence. I suspect you will be seeing more opinion pieces like Stansfield Turner's coming down the pike. Interestingly enough this guy saw it coming a while back: http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles00/prorowe.htm <i>The shift toward a littoral, land-attack focus was an appropriate response to the demise of the Cold War's open-ocean naval threat. In the rush to capture limited defense dollars by cashing in on power-projection funding, however, the Navy has effectively eliminated the battle group's ability to operate in a contested littoral without land-based support. This situation will become worse in the next decade, as current budget plans are followed and littoral area-denial threats continue to grow. The bottom line is that the naval aviation leadership's myopic dedication of strike capabilities has stripped the carrier air wing of critical support in virtually every other mission area. The recent reversal in Navy JFACC policy means that land bases will be required for command and control, even if they are not needed to support actual operational capabilities. The few bright spots are overwhelmed by the many gaps in essential capabilities. While it true that the carrier may be able to position aircraft somewhat closer to an enemy's coastline, Air Force tanking (on which the Navy is also dependent) can ensure similar combat reach for land-based strike fighters. Even the supposed force-protection benefits of basing air power at sea are increasingly questionable, given the growth of area-denial threats and the Navy's reluctance to devote real resources to ASW, ASUW, overland sensing (to detect mobile missile launchers), or mine countermeasures. If putting the carrier air wing at sea provides no unique advantages, then why spend billions upon billions of dollars for aircraft carriers and specialized, tailhook-equipped aircraft?</i> I have been observing (and at times directly particiaping in) Naval Aviation for nearly half its entire existence-not that it matters just even a little-but in all that time I have never seen the tailhook navy as unbalanced as it is today.
And I will say that unbalance is inimical to its continued existence. I suspect you will be seeing more opinion pieces like Stansfield Turner’s coming down the pike.

Interestingly enough this guy saw it coming a while back:
http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles00/prorowe.htm
The shift toward a littoral, land-attack focus was an appropriate response to the demise of the Cold War’s open-ocean naval threat. In the rush to capture limited defense dollars by cashing in on power-projection funding, however, the Navy has effectively eliminated the battle group’s ability to operate in a contested littoral without land-based support. This situation will become worse in the next decade, as current budget plans are followed and littoral area-denial threats continue to grow.

The bottom line is that the naval aviation leadership’s myopic dedication of strike capabilities has stripped the carrier air wing of critical support in virtually every other mission area. The recent reversal in Navy JFACC policy means that land bases will be required for command and control, even if they are not needed to support actual operational capabilities. The few bright spots are overwhelmed by the many gaps in essential capabilities.

While it true that the carrier may be able to position aircraft somewhat closer to an enemy’s coastline, Air Force tanking (on which the Navy is also dependent) can ensure similar combat reach for land-based strike fighters. Even the supposed force-protection benefits of basing air power at sea are increasingly questionable, given the growth of area-denial threats and the Navy’s reluctance to devote real resources to ASW, ASUW, overland sensing (to detect mobile missile launchers), or mine countermeasures. If putting the carrier air wing at sea provides no unique advantages, then why spend billions upon billions of dollars for aircraft carriers and specialized, tailhook-equipped aircraft?

]]>